- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:41:18 -0600
- To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brett Slatkin <brett@haxor.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Sayre wrote: >> As such, I think there's more value in something more capable >> than specific, lest we all drown in a sea of special-purpose, >> needlessly application-specific protocols. > > One example of an unreasonable request would be to suggest that > developers are required to solve a much bigger problem then they've > set out to. In this case, I don't see a reason to apply stop > energy. The PubSubHubbub effort is clearly not going to hurt the > Web or the Internet in general, the link relation namespace is not > especially crowded, and the IETF is free to modify or expand the > definition of the hub relation over time. With that in mind, I > don't think the text of the registration should or will stop people > if the proposed relation turns out to be useful for non-feed media > types. I am not necessarily opposed to the addition of a simple/non-namespaced relation, but it still seems like it should be necessary to have some the relationship clearly articulated enough to delineate between "hub" (or whatever relation name that is used) and the existing "monitor" relation. A developer (like me) should be able to make an informed selection between the two for other notification formats. - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq2vZ0ACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAzfLwCgwjmN5+T7AoNThSmXddyBdnx7 UrcAniJrK9wJXflkK1Ul4fHqyGU/x7Kz =nXSq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 23:42:12 UTC